The right to self-defense
By Wendy McElroy
web posted July 18, 2005
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the
Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a
constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a
restraining order.
By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has
no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect
her and her children from her estranged husband.
The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it
has missed an obvious point. If the government won't protect
you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-
defense and that of your family. The court's ruling is a sad
decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of
violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must
also be ready to defend yourself.
In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her
estranged husband Simon, which limited his access to their
children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three
daughters. Though the Castle Rock police department disputes
some of the details of what happened next, the two sides are in
basic agreement: After her daughters' abduction, Gonzales
repeatedly phoned the police for assistance. Officers visited the
home. Believing Simon to be non-violent and, arguably, in
compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining
order, the police did nothing.
The next morning, Simon committed "suicide by cop." He shot a
gun repeatedly through a police station window and was killed
by returned fire. The murdered bodies of Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9
and Rebecca, 10 were found in Simon's pickup truck.
In her lawsuit, Gonzales claimed the police violated her 14th
Amendment right to due process and sued them for $30 million.
She won at the Appeals level.
What were the arguments that won and lost in the Supreme
Court?
Winners: local officials fell back upon a rich history of court
decisions that found the police to have no constitutional
obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856,
the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law
enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such
protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit held, "...there is no Constitutional right to be
protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or
madmen."
Later court decisions have concurred.
Losers: anti-domestic violence advocates and women's groups,
such as the National Association of Women Lawyers, failed to
establish that restraining orders were constitutional entitlements.
If they had succeeded, the enforcement of such orders would
have been guaranteed by due process. Failure to enforce them
would have been grounds for a lawsuit against the police, a
precedent that local officials feared would flood them with
expensive litigation.
Public analysis of Rock v. Gonzales has been largely defined by
these two opposing positions.
A third position cries out: Given the court's position that the
police are not obliged to protect us, responsible adults need the
ability to defend themselves. Thus, no law or policy should
impede the access to gun ownership.
Responsible adults — both male and female — have both a right
and a need to defend themselves and their families, with lethal
force if necessary. If domestic violence advocates had focused
on putting a gun in Jessica's hand and training her to use it, then
the three Gonzales children might still be alive. After all, Jessica
knew where her husband was. Indeed, she informed the police
repeatedly of his location.
Of course, the Gonzales case — in and of itself — presents
difficulties for the use of armed force by private citizens. Would
the same police who believed Simon Gonzales was not
dangerous have believed Jessica to be justified in picking up a
gun to protect her children from him? Would the police have
charged her for use of a weapon? Regardless, these sticky
debates would probably be taking place in the presence of three
living children and not three dead ones.
Nevertheless, most anti-domestic violence advocates strenuously
avoid gun ownership as a possible solution to domestic violence.
Instead, they appeal for more police intervention even though the
police have no obligation to provide protection.
When groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW)
do focus on gun ownership, it is to make such statements as,
"Guns and domestic violence make a lethal combination, injuring
and killing women every day."
In short, NOW addresses the issue of gun ownership and
domestic violence only in order to demand a prohibition on the
ability of abusers — always defined as men — to own weapons.
That position may be defensible. But it ignores half of the
equation. It ignores the need of potential victims to defend
themselves and their families. Anti-domestic violence and
women's groups create the impression that guns are always part
of the problem and never part of the solution.
The current mainstream of feminism — from which most anti-
domestic violence advocates proceed — is an expression of left
liberalism. It rejects private solutions based on individual rights in
favor of laws aimed at achieving social goals. A responsible
individual holding a gun in self-defense does not fit their vision of
society.
In the final analysis, such advocates do not trust the judgment of
the women they claim to be defending. They do not believe that
Jessica Gonzales' three children would have been safer with a
mother who was armed and educated in gun use.
The clear message of Gonzales bears repeating because you will
not hear it elsewhere. The police have no obligation to protect
individuals who, therefore, should defend themselves. The
content of state laws does not matter; by Colorado State law,
the police are required to "use every reasonable means to
enforce a protection order." The Supreme Court has ruled and
that's that.
In the wake of Gonzales, every anti-domestic violence advocate
should advise victims — male or female — to learn self-defense.
They should lobby for the repeal of any law or policy that
hinders responsible gun ownership.
The true meaning of being anti-domestic violence means is to
help victims out of their victimhood and into a position of power.
Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research
fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the
author and editor of many books and articles, including the new
book, "Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st
Century" (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives
with her husband in Canada.
Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com